OBJECTIVE: The processing of food cues in eating-disordered patients has recently been increasingly investigated. Outlined is current evidence from pictorial food stimuli studies. METHOD: PubMed and PsychINFO were searched for quantitative pictorial food stimuli studies investigating healthy controls and expert-diagnosed eating-disordered patients. RESULTS: Patients with eating disorders (ED) demonstrated cue reactivity to food stimuli. Results from functional imaging suggest sensory disengagement and higher emotional involvement while self-reported data and facial EMG revealed that food pictures were perceived as less pleasurable. Different experimental paradigms have demonstrated an attentional bias for food cues in ED. Currently, psychophysiological data is widely inconclusive. DISCUSSION: Evidence suggests cue reactivity to food pictures in eating-disordered patients. However, the overall picture is inconclusive because methodological problems and the integration of findings from different experimental approaches pose a challenge to the research field.
OBJECTIVE: The processing of food cues in eating-disorderedpatients has recently been increasingly investigated. Outlined is current evidence from pictorial food stimuli studies. METHOD: PubMed and PsychINFO were searched for quantitative pictorial food stimuli studies investigating healthy controls and expert-diagnosed eating-disorderedpatients. RESULTS:Patients with eating disorders (ED) demonstrated cue reactivity to food stimuli. Results from functional imaging suggest sensory disengagement and higher emotional involvement while self-reported data and facial EMG revealed that food pictures were perceived as less pleasurable. Different experimental paradigms have demonstrated an attentional bias for food cues in ED. Currently, psychophysiological data is widely inconclusive. DISCUSSION: Evidence suggests cue reactivity to food pictures in eating-disorderedpatients. However, the overall picture is inconclusive because methodological problems and the integration of findings from different experimental approaches pose a challenge to the research field.
Authors: Monika Stojek; Lisa M Shank; Anna Vannucci; Diana M Bongiorno; Eric E Nelson; Andrew J Waters; Scott G Engel; Kerri N Boutelle; Daniel S Pine; Jack A Yanovski; Marian Tanofsky-Kraff Journal: Appetite Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Sarah E Racine; Kelsie T Forbush; Jennifer E Wildes; Kelsey E Hagan; Lauren O Pollack; Casey May Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Marion A Stopyra; Hans-Christoph Friederich; Esther Mönning; Nora Lavandier; Martin Bendszus; Wolfgang Herzog; Joe J Simon Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Laura Miccoli; Rafael Delgado; Sonia Rodríguez-Ruiz; Pedro Guerra; Eduardo García-Mármol; M Carmen Fernández-Santaella Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elisabeth J Leehr; Kathrin Schag; Amelie Brinkmann; Ann-Christine Ehlis; Andreas J Fallgatter; Stephan Zipfel; Katrin E Giel; Thomas Dresler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 3.240